Michael Hathman Political News

Friday, March 24, 2017

Trump has promised lower premiums, lower deductibles and plans that the public is "going to love" but, so far, getting that kind of plan is proving to be a "big job" that is "hard to do" - using Trump's own verbiage.

Problem #1 - The Campaign Pledge to Lower Premiums & Deductibles

In order to keep premiums "affordable" and deductibles down (without price caps on products and services) the government is going to have to subsidize the plans for about 24,000,000 people already on Obamacare. If the plan the Republicans are going to forward to the American people is to be "better" than the Affordable Care Act, then, by definition, the premiums and deductibles will need to be far lower than those currently experienced under the ACA.

Problem #2 - More Spending to Offset Premiums & Deductibles Can't Be Married with Cutting Spending on Healthcare

The Republicans want to forward a plan that is far more conservative and won't cost more money while promising to cut premiums and deductibles by some type of supplemental government coverage. Cutting Spending and Spending more (at the same time, in the same respect, on the same item) is nonsense. All in all, the Republicans are going to have to pass a healthcare reform bill that is massively bigger in costs and subsidies and far more left of Obamacare. Quite literally speaking, any plan the Republicans would pose, will need to be far more generous and liberal than the "liberal" plan already in place that is known as Obamacare.

Problem #3 - Any Plan that Is Passed by the House Will Absolutely Need to Beat Premium and Deductible Costs - MORE SO Than Under the ACA

If this campaign promise isn't delivered to the American people, the GOP will look like a mob of liars. The program the GOP designs will have to meet or beat the ACA costs of plans.

Problem #4 - Time is of the Essence & Running Out

The GOP had the better part of a decade to come up with a plan. They said they had a healthcare plan. That simply isn't true - sketchy details of a plan isn't a plan. Mid-term elections are fast approaching. If they don't deliver both a repeal (and replacement), many GOP congresspersons may find themselves unemployed during the next few election cycles.

Furthermore, as disgruntled masses of constituents start moving their votes over to the Democrats, Republican majorities will shrink (and possibly disappear altogether) and healthcare-reform-the-Republican-way will be dead with growing number of opposition politicians growing in numbers over time.

Problem #5 - Repeal Would Need to Accompany Replacement

Failure to Repeal and replace would lead to many of those who desperately need treatment being denied because of inability to pay. Deaths due to inaccessibility to affordable healthcare due to Republican recklessness would cause a massive backlash and an outrage by those who see the denial of affordable healthcare to sick and dying - a massive case moral turpitude. Such events would spark even bigger demonstrations and public outcry.

Problem #6 - Repeal Obamacare - A "NO WIN" Situation

The problem here is that Obamacare would have been easier to repeal if many millions in the Republican base hadn't moved to enroll for health insurance. But, millions are now enrolled. If Republicans kill Obamacare, they will be throwing millions of their own constituents off healthcare enrollment - the very same people who voted GOP candidates into office.

If Obamacare isn't repealed, the GOP base (that hasn't enrolled for health insurance through the ACA) will be angry and may not vote for GOP candidates in upcoming elections because they couldn't keep this massive promise of repeal.

In Conclusion

Republicans have a hard way to go. Either way, it's a "no-win" situation with regard to healthcare reform in America. It may be time to for many in the Republican wing to start updating their resumes because it's only a matter of time before voters start becoming a disgruntled bunch casting ballots.

Sunday, January 22, 2017

What does "Separation of Church & State" really mean? Why is the media lying about it? Well, here's the real truth!

(1) The Separation of Church & State means that a church shall not have the privilege of collecting taxes from the state.

(2) No clergy shall hold a position in the church and have said position still retain any type of political power.

Separation of Church & State does NOT mean:

(1) Banning the Bible or teachings of morality from the nation's schools.

(2) Banning God from all places government.

(3) Banning God from the public square.

(4) Banning God and Biblical speech in the public forums or places of academia.

From Wikipedia: "Separation of church and state" (sometimes "wall of separation between church and state") is a phrase used by Thomas Jefferson and others expressing an understanding of the intent and function of the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

What was the solid intentions of the Founding Fathers with regard to the establishment of the United States of America?

John Adams in a speech to the military in 1798 warned his fellow countrymen stating, "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams is a signer of the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights and our second President.

Benjamin Rush, Signer of the Declaration of Independence said. "[T]he only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be aid in religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments. Without religion, I believe that learning does real mischief to the morals and principles of mankind."

Gouverneur Morris, Penman and Signer of the Constitution. "[F]or avoiding the extremes of despotism or anarchy . . . the only ground of hope must be on the morals of the people. I believe that religion is the only solid base of morals and that morals are the only possible support of free governments. [T]herefore education should teach the precepts of religion and the duties of man towards God."

James Wilson, Signer of the Constitution; U. S. Supreme Court Justice, "Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is divine. . . . Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. Indeed, these two sciences run into each other."

George Washington, General of the Revolutionary Army, president of the Constitutional Convention, First President of the United States of America, Father of our nation, " Religion and morality are the essential pillars of civil society."

Benjamin Franklin, Signer of the Declaration of Independence "[O]nly a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."

"Whereas true religion and good morals are the only solid foundations of public liberty and happiness . . . it is hereby earnestly recommended to the several States to take the most effectual measures for the encouragement thereof." Continental Congress, 1778

Friday, January 20, 2017

Well, the story when our nation first started, isn't much different than it is today. In 1789, the United States was as divided as it was in the Revolutionary War. The South supported Britain with the North mostly supporting Unionist. Later, it became the Slave States v the Northern States and State Rights v the Federal Government.

Additionally, the Founding Fathers distrusted a powerful federalist state (they just broke away from England the tyranny of the very powerful English Parliament).

The Founding Fathers greatly favored a very powerful system of "checks and balances" and this extends beyond the confines of government itself by design.

For example, not only were the 3 branches of government checks Presidential ("Executive"), Congressional and the Supreme Court. The three branches also had different power levels designed within themselves to provide more "checking" security. For example, the court system would be divided into 4 groups: state, state supreme courts, appellate, federal and federal supreme courts so that no one judge would wield too much power. Likewise, Congress (divided into House and Senate) would also be divided further by committees and the 2 houses could be checked by each other when considering legislation. And, the executive (running both police and military) could be checked by both houses of Congress and the Supreme Court.

Obviously, having checks on and within branches of government is important. But, the press (representing both the "voice" and "watchdog" of the American People. The press would be the "check" on government overall.

North v South

That brings us to the Electorial College.

Population in the later 1700's favored the northern states. And as a voting block, it typically favored the Republican Party. In any election, any election held would most likely favor a Northern President as opposed to a Southern one. Leaving the system to a "popular vote" would have further put a political "wedge" between the North and the South and thereby giving an "unfair" edge up on for the Northern States. This presented a very unique problem that had to addressed adequately and as "fairly" as possible. Furthermore, much of the population was disfranchised by the voting requirements. But those voters who were male, owning land and white were favored to cast votes while (in many cases) there were restrictions on non-whites, non-Catholics, Jews and women. This kept the voting pool rather small and ostensibly, it made the voting field extremely "lop-sided" favoring northern interests. In order to avoid a civil war and giving the south a very good reason to secede from the Union, the Founding Fathers absolutely had to solve this problem of regional voting "favoritism" that would almost always award the north a "northern president".

This would present a huge problem for the Union standing behind a President without being bitterly divided based on population. In 1790, the first census was taken and the lopsided "voters" was glaring as much as it was clear:

Out of 791,850 "qualified voters who were white males of 16 years and upward, including heads of households, only 244,757 were residing in Southern states at that time.

The Electorial College was the solution to address this very, very serious problem. By having congressional districts (based on party control), a college of electors could be chosen by the congressional districts to elect the president. This system of choosing the president a more "equitable way" of voting when deciding which candidate president (with much less deference with regard to region and population density).

Urbis v Ruris

Today, the map of the United States is still bitterly divided with cities supporting more liberal and Democratic candidates for president of the United States and rural areas supporting more conservative and Republican candidates for President.

An Extraordinary Glimpse of Population Currently

Nearly 90% of the American population (87%) lives in urban areas. If the popular vote were taken (almost all of the time) a president would emerge from an urban area (as is currently the case). Many of rural voters would feel as though they were "forgotten" and "outnumbered" by city dwellers in the political process. Keeping an Electorial College as part of the Presidential selection would take the votes of rural Americans much more into consideration than otherwise.

Currently, the Electorial College allows for some votes of Americans to be "weighted more" than votes situated in bigger, more populated states and those states who have more urbanized or bigger urbanized areas in general.

An Electorial College allows the votes of Americans to be counted much more equitably than by a system based on popular vote based on regional and geographical locations than by the population as a whole.

However, times are changing and perhaps, with the electorate being far more sophisticated and politically up-to-date, a vote based on popularity may be the answer combined with a third party that is more center than the current two parties that maintain political power and that is inclusive of all poeple regardless of geographical residency.

Wednesday, August 10, 2016

Well, you probably won't believe me when I tell you, my readers, about the stories I have been hearing about the horrible, terrible child support cases going on in this nation - especially here in the great state of Missouri (which lately is not so much).

Did you know that the only court in the nation - the family law courts - DO NOT demand proof of paternity and take the mother's word that some such person is the father of her babies? NO PROOF REQUIRED. The court takes the word of the mother on face value - without any type of proof to support her claims of paternity. NO PROOF! If that isn't the most ridiculous item of the day. And, worse, these alleged "fathers" are being jailed and their financial lives ruined all because of this insane and corrupt and reprobate system.

I am not at all saying that parents shouldn't support their kids. All I am saying is that men who are NOT fathering children should not be paying child support on a child that is NOT their own. The biological father should be the one paying - regardless of whether the mother is married to someone else or not (or was married and having an affair) OR JUST PLAIN LYING ABOUT THE PATERNITY OF THE CHILD.

CASE IN POINT

I have a friend, whom I will address as Mr X. Mr X was dating a girl back in 1995. They dated and had intercourse. Later, they broke up but had never colluded to form a family or have a child together. Months later, she left for another state and said called saying she was going to have a baby. Perhaps it is his child. BUT perhaps not.

Later, in the other state, she filed for child support. My friend wanted a paternity test and submitted blood work on the order of the other state. But, the mother never did submit the child for testing.

FAST FORWARD TO 2014

Our attorney, Craig, got the case dismissed (but not permanently) in Missouri. It was dismissed without prejudice.

During our meeting with him, he mentioned that there have been numerous men who have committed suicide because the child support issue is so bad here.

FAST FORWARD TO 2016

My friend, Mr X, has been sending correspondence to the state where the mother resides now. Their response: A child support bill. All of his legal arguments and reasons not to pay until a paternity test could settle the matter had been ignored.

Just recently, we had sent the following correspondence (to no avail):

In the Matter of:

Petitioner XXXXXX

& Mr X

Case #: XXXXX

To Whom It May Concern:

Please be advised that this case is also connected to Case #: XXXX (which was dismissed). (See attachment A).

I contend that I do not owe any such child support and contest any amount owed to Petitioner XXXXXX.

My rights have been disregarded on multiple occasions regarding this matter and I have repeatedly demanded that paternity be established with regard to my rights under the following statute:

15 U.S.C. § 1681 (“FCRA”) 622

The State of X has repeatedly reported the amount due to the national credit bureaus in the amount of $166,781.29. This is intentional credit interference with my credit expectancy. As the law requires, this arrearage may only be reported once proof of such a claim has been established. The only way proof can possibly be established is by the execution of a paternity test.

I also dispute the fact that the arrearage amount is a completely arbitrary amount that was fabricated by the courts and that the amount due is fraudulent and that no proof of income was ever used (nor any formula ever disclosed to me) in how this figure was calculated.

Furthermore, I have never claimed to be the father of the child in question. I have never claimed to have had a right to the child or invited the child to be part of my life in anyway. This would have been impossible as the mother of the child, Petitioner XXXXXX relocated to X and after having the child, only then advised me (nearly a year later) that she had a child. I have no way of knowing whether the child, in question, is actually my own.

I do not believe that child support should be enforced for the reasons that:

(1)Paternity has never been established (even though I had submitted to DNA testing several times) and Petitioner XXXXXX refused or failed to submit the child for same.

(2)Petitioner XXXXXX denied me of my right to know whether or not the child is indeed my own.

(3)Petitioner XXXXXX denied me the chance to see the child in question.

(4)Petitioner XXXXXX also relocated to another state without my knowledge or agreement.

According to Nolo.com the following legal opinion on matters of paternity and child support (with which I fully agree) states:

Determining the answer to the seemingly simple question "Who is the father?" is not as straightforward as you might think. Different circumstances give rise to different legal rules.

When Paternity Is Agreed On or Presumed

Acknowledged father. An acknowledged father is a biological father of a child born to unmarried parents, for whom paternity has been established by either the admission of the father or the agreement of the parents. An acknowledged father must pay child support.

Presumed father. If any of the following are true, a man is presumed to be the father of a child, unless he or the mother proves otherwise to a court:

•The man was married to the mother when the child was conceived or born, although some states do not consider a man to be a presumed father if the couple has separated.

•The man attempted to marry the mother (even if the marriage was not valid) and the child was conceived or born during the attempted marriage.

•The man married the mother after the birth and agreed either to have his name on the birth certificate or to support the child.

•The man welcomed the child into his home and openly held the child out as his own.

In some states, any of these presumptions of paternity is considered conclusive, which means it cannot be disproven, even with contradictory blood tests. In Michael H. v. Gerald D., 491 U.S. 110 (1989), the U.S. Supreme Court upheld California's presumed father statute as a rational method of protecting the integrity of the family against challenges based on the due process rights of the father and the child.

A presumed father must pay child support.

Equitable parent. The law has changed a great deal in the last decade, and now in quite a few states, a spouse who is not a legal parent (biological or adoptive) may be granted custody or visitation under the notion of equitable parent. Courts apply this concept when a spouse and child have a close relationship and consider themselves parent and child or where the biological parent encouraged this relationship. If the court grants an equitable parent custody or visitation, then the parent will also be required to pay child support. This type of parentage decision occurs frequently in cases where same-sex couples are parenting together.

Alleged father. An unmarried man who impregnates a woman is often referred to as an alleged father, or sometimes simply as an unwed father. An alleged or unwed father will be required to pay child support if a court determines or he acknowledges that he's the father; in addition, an alleged or unwed father has the right to visitation with his child and may seek custody.

Stepfather. A stepfather is the spouse of a legal mother and is not also the biological father of the woman's children. A stepfather is not obligated to support the children of the woman to whom he is married unless he legally adopts the children.

Paternity Actions

A paternity action, a court suit filed to have a man declared the father of a child, can be brought by either the mother or the father. Paternity actions are sometimes called establishment hearings, filiation hearings, or parentage actions.

Most paternity actions are initiated by welfare officials who provide TANF (Temporary Aid to Needy Families) to the mother and are required by law to seek reimbursement from the father. The mother must cooperate in these proceedings; failure to do so can result in a reduction or loss of her TANF grant.

Today, blood and DNA tests can affirmatively determine paternity with a 99.99% accuracy and can rule out paternity with 100% accuracy.

If paternity is established following a paternity action, the court will order the father to pay child support and grant him custody or visitation rights.

I declare that I do not fit lawfully into any of these categories as defined by legal definition.

Petitioner XXXXXX and myself never established a “family relationship” and that no “family” has ever existed between myself and Petitioner XXXXXX.

Furthermore, if I am required by the State of X and/or the State of Missouri to pay this child support without having a paternity test to determine whether or not I am the biological father, then I will sue both the State of X and Missouri for the following amounts in question:

(1)Actual damages in the amount of $333,352.58 ($166,781,29 from each state)

(2)Punitive damages in the amount of 10x the amount rewarded by the courts from the State of X in which was arbitrarily decided by the courts for denying my rights to have a paternity test denied me ($3,335,625.80).

(3)Punitive damages from the State of X and the State of Missouri in the amount of 10x the amount of the paternity arrearage due ($3,335,625.80) with regard to the legal concept of, “Interference with Credit Expectancy”.

(4)Punitive damages from both the State of X and the State of Missouri for harassment and causing me undue economic hardship and emotional duress regarding the harassment I have received over the past 15 years regarding this nonsense ($3,335,625.80).

(5)I will also sue for complete expungement of the derogatory information contained in the public record regarding this child support issue as it has unjustly (even until now) damaged my reputation and defamed my personhood. For this defamation of character, I will sue both the State of X and the State of Missouri ($3,335,625.80) for this injustice.

(6)I motion that this court action be immediately dismissed WITH PREJUDICE by both the State of X and the State of Missouri without further delay, and, in exchange, I may elect not to sue for damages.

Sincerely,

Respondent

Unfortunately, Mr X had since gotten a job at a local retailer and now the child support is now being deducted from his check: $1,200 monthly AND WITHOUT PROOF OF A BLOOD TEST! Now, he's been dealing this for nearly 20(+) years now and I have tried to help him as best as I can with his situation.

Now, we are asking for $10,000,000 for each year he has been mistreated during this ordeal and denied his right to a paternity test. Why so much? Because if you don't sue for a huge sum of money, it won't get the state's attention and they will keep abusing citizens and all without the consideration of a blood test.

Another Attorney

Gary is a great family law attorney. But, what he told us was enough to make me vomit. He said that the judges are "immune" from harm because they "rely" on the claims of the mother. Blood tests are not primarily required. A simple statement is mostly all that is required AND WITHOUT PROOF.

Funny. I disagree that a government can be immune from their actions. The state IS NEVER immune to mistreating and falsely imprisoning their citizens. All courts MUST run on EVIDENCE. It is evidence that decides the matter - in this case, a simple blood test.

I stated that Lincoln, at the Gettysburg Address, uttered the words, "a government of the people, by the people and for the people" is what true governance is. Since Abraham Lincoln said this, it is taken as a form of "agency law" with respect to the government handling the affairs of the people. Anything less is a system of corruption, abuse of power and lack of due care. GOVERNMENT IS ALWAYS ANSWERABLE TO THE PEOPLE. The government has a fiduciary duty to act with due care with regard to all of their citizens. Failure to do so places the states at terrible financial and legal risk (as in this case).

Getting Yet Another Attorney

Mr X is now in the process of hiring another attorney in another state to get this case dismissed. Then, we will need to locate another one to file the civil suit. So, stay tuned...

1 MOTHER, 3 BABIES, 9 MEN

Mr X told me about another case whereby a mother of 3 children filed for child care against 3 men WITHOUT PROOF. Then she changed the names of the babies and then filed another 3 claims against another 3 men. She did it again one more time and got caught collecting 9 child support checks from 9 men for 3 babies. The state caught on to her shenanigans and she is now serving 18 years in prison.

1 MOTHER & 2 MEN OF DIFFERENT RACES - ONE WHITE, ONE BLACK

In yet another case, a white mother got pregnant by an African American and filed for child support for the child against the white male. The kid didn't look anything like the father, and being black, it was plain to see. He (the alleged father) hired a private investigator and, by bringing his findings, she went to prison for fraud.

THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WITHOUT PROOF. THE INNOCENT PAY AND PAY DEARLY. TIME TO CHANGE THE RULES OF THE GAME.

Saturday, July 23, 2016

Please know that first and foremost, I am a Christian and a Patriot before I am a Democrat, Independent or Republican. And, being such, I cannot and will not stay silent.

I understand frustration and why people want to vote for an "outsider" and it makes sense. People are tired of the "old" system of government where lobbyists and billionaires set the agenda. The voters are tired of seeing criminal banksters run free from prosecution. We, the People, are tired of seeing mass shootings and tired of seeing government deny assistance to the mentally unstable, unwilling to fund mental health (none of which has been addressed in this campaign).

WHAT'S WRONG WITH AMERICA?

None of this is being addressed as it should...

We are tired of political correctness.

We deny the mentally ill access to adequate healthcare.

Since 1963, we took the Bible out of schools and omitted teaching ethics and wisdom to our children.

Our society has the highest incarceration rate in the entire world and we are #1 with prison population (55,000,000).

We are #1 in terms of massive litigation with 100,000,000 cases filed each year.

We spend more on defense than the next 25 nations combined.

We lead the world #1 in production of pornography.

Drug cartels of Mexico and South America flood our streets with drugs.

Our educational system has broken down and bullying and harassment and disobedience has become the norm.

We have a "delegate system" in both parties when all that is required is state primaries overseen by the Secretaries of State.

We produce the largest number of television shows that show, without end, the destruction of human lives and murder dramas.

Our nation is obese.

Racism has made its return (in a big way).

Our cops are abused in many cases, and in many cases, our society abuses our cops more than one way - by the people and the government.

We have allowed teen pregnancy to fester and allowed "abortion on demand" to be the answer.

We have 2 parties - both of whom have little regard for the moderate majority.

The young have become lazy and don't want to work.

We teach people that debt and credit are the "easy way" to get what you want.

Our nation has the #1 divorce rate in the world. A lot of this has to do with being selfish than anything else such as feminism.

We lead the world in STD - with 1 in 3 Americans affected.

We burden our students with too much debt on student loans.

Too many people in our nation would rather have the sick die than spend "good money" to heal.

We would rather give huge sums of money away in foreign aid than enable our poor here in out country to be better off and well-adjusted.

The government has become overly oppressive - especially to the poor with regard to paying fines and jailing people when they don't or can't pay. They have gone "overboard" on grass cutting fees and zoning requirements.

Common Core - a method of teaching craziness.

We are not a friendly, forgiving or welcoming nation to immigrants and would rather turn to xenophobia.

We have become a nation obsessing over guns and yet we are failing to keep them out of the hands of criminals and the criminally insane.

We would rather read fiction than read good books that improve the mind and soul.

We spend more time with our technology than with each other.

We start wars that, somehow, we can't finish.

A WORD ABOUT ETHICS & WISDOM

You say, Mr. Trump, that you want to "MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN"? Really? How about teaching our people ethics and the soundness of good, moral character. This one simple solution is would, for the most part, nearly cure all of America's problems.

You say you would make a "GREAT" leader and you would be the best. I find that hard to believe when your party acts as hateful as you do sir (and yet they maintain to mostly be Christians).

Showing a person mutual respect is one of the prime indicators that you are a Christian. Furthermore, your party calls itself "REPUBLICAN" and is representing the will of constituents everywhere and is open to dialogue, discussion and compromise. Compromise is a central ingredient to a healthy, strong relationship and part of the process of moving forward in UNITY. That is why your party isn't unified and is against other groups of people - IT'S SIMPLY BECAUSE YOU FAIL TO UNDERSTAND THE BASIC PHILOSOPHY OF MUTUAL RESPECT AND COMPROMISE.

The problem isn't Democrats sir or, even liberals. The problem is ethics and compromise and understanding the limits of government in the lives of the governed. We have failed miserable as a country when it comes to mutual respect, extolling wisdom and ethics. That's where the failures lie. A people without ethics is a lawless brood.

I would like to add that your ideas of "rounding up" illegals and deporting them comes very, closely similar to what the Nazis did with the Jews in the 1930's and 40's. The idea is eerily similar to those events. And, with the national media bring up the word, "nationalist" almost makes us look intolerant, arrogant and very unfriendly. That isn't and will never be what America is. America is far more than our nation, it is "idea" where truth, wisdom, justice and ethics prevail as well as opportunity.

IN CLOSING

We were formally a nation that stood up for what is right, what is moral. We weren't afraid in doing so. Acting in a moral way is just as important as talking about it. So, I will leave you with these quotes as thoughts to ponder:

“A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” (John 13: 34-35)

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven." (Matthew 5:43-44)

"For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in," (Matthew 25:35)

“The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’" (Matthew 25:40)